Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-02-19
THE Willis Case.
The Evidence All In and the Lawyers
Argue the Case Before the In
yestigating Committee.
Attorney-EenerGl H0gg Makes a Strong
Speech in Presenting the Case
for tie State of Texas.
Messrs. Davis and Walton for the Defense
Make Mastery Arguments and Ex-
pound Impeachment Law.
Special to the Gazette

AUSTIN, TEX, Feb. 1S.-The special
committee in the Judge Willis case met
in the Supreme courtroom this morning
to hear the argument OF the state and
defendants counsel in presenting the
law aid the facts bearing on the case.
Quite a number of spectators were
present, and among them several
ladies.
Attorney eneral Hogg opened the case
by arraigning Judge Willis on the follow
ing charges touching his conduct as
Judge:
/. They were collusive, fraudulent and
farcical.
,. They were irregular and invalid as
TO the defendants, but estopped The
state.
The Judge was responsible for them,
for he was the supreme power in charge,
and as such, if he knew, he
was corrupt; if he did not know,
then, he was guilty OF criminal
negligence. Fer the former he was i'm
peachsble for high CRIME, for the latter
he would be guilty of en- official misde-
meanor. In support of these charges
Attorney General Hogg read / ON many
cases in the common law, the Supreme
courts and the provisions Of the cOnstItu-
ton aud Statute laws Of the state. He
then took up the evidence and fOrcibly
brought out the strong points, referring
to the grand jurY's actions, the trial Of
| tie cases after Indictment, and ell the
points heretofore published in TIE GA
ZETTE.
Judge jim Davis opened the case for
the defense by readiug several authori-
ties en- the restrictions to be placed on
the right OF impeachment under the pro-
visions OF the constitution. lie then
engaged il an elaborate argument
on the failura OF the
evidence 20 make outa case against Judge
willis, claiming that the acts of Others
fer charges against his client.
MsiOr Walton then concluded the ar
guam Mt on behalf of the defense in en- el0-
quent and forcible speech Of about three
and one-half hours. He called attention
to the Importance of the case, that the
inpeach ent law OF Texas was unlike
any law of the United States or any state
They laid down the causes of impeach-
ment, but the constitution of Texas only
said that the power of impeachment was
vested in the House of Representatives
He said that impeachment only extended
to removal from office, but after he was
removed he could be indicted
and tried. He said there
are three modes of impeachment, to wit
Ten lawyers can prefer charges, and he
shall! be tried before the Supreme court
he can be dismissed out Of office by the
two houses of the Legislature, and then
the mode as laid down in the present
proceedings. He told the committee that
it was only their duty to see if there was
any cause of impeachment, and present
them to the House Of Il representatives..
They could not prefer articles of i'm
parchment themselves. He then cited q
section OF the penal law, that no man be
held to answer for 4 crime that is not
defHed and made punishable by the
statute law. Then if it is true
that defendant must be sub
jeCt to indictment under the
law before he Can be Impeached, your
labors are at an end as soon as You have
heard the Attorney Generals last Grgu-
ment, because no crimes subject to in.
diClment have been proven against Judge
Willis. He then read from The case of
Lord Melville before the English Parlia,
ment, who was acquitted because the
crimes alleged against him were rot pun
ishGble nnder tae laws Of England. La.
pescament was only another means OF
Furnishing men for violating laws, and all
trials and examinations of committees
must be governed by rules laid down, fQr
81 -
resort, and we are forced to the common
law for presidents. He then read from an
opinion Of Daniel Webster where il
was held that the foundation
of Impeachment must be based on viola-
ton OF the provisions of some known
law. He paid an eloquent c 1mpiiment to
the legal wisdom of Mr. Webster, and
asked il the Attorney General could, in
the face of such authority, take the posi-
tion that he did. He tnen claimed that
Judge Willis could not be lmpesched for
anything that he had done before his re-
election to the Office by the people, citing
an authority that held that when g man
was reelected to an office it was evidence
that he was not guilty, for there was no
higher authority than the people. He re-
ferred to the case of Mr.. Belknap, the Sec
rotary of War, who resigned and be-
came a private citizen and then
no charges of impeachment could
be brought against him. Reviewing the
points made by the Attorney General up
on the evidence he claimed that after the
grand jury was organized the Judge was
as powerless to interfere with them as
any other lawyer of his CONTRIBUTING
the law governing the duties of grand
jurors. Touching the agreement of evil
dence by the attorneys in the Enclosure
cases, he read a decision from Judge
Hemphlll that favored al agreement of
facts in civil cases, and could not see any
reason why the same rule could not be
followed IN misdemeGnor cases where the
verdict was not one Of Imprisonment.
Referring to the evidence of Wood
man, who said that he had
agreed that the jury might not bring
in verdict assessing Imprisonment as
g part of the punishment, that 1t placed
the defendants in the attitude of being
allowed under the law to appear by coup-
sci, he claimed that Goodnight and